More On Meds And Violence

Today will be busy for me, so I want to push out a few posts to get the day started.

Yesterday we were looking at the possibility, or likelihood, that the young killer at the TX school was on meds of one sort or another. I cited Alex Berenson in that regard:

Ashamed to be an American

In that substack Berenson argues that American young people are vastly overmedicated with behavior modifying drugs.

That discussion, fairly naturally, led to mention of the possible role of cannabis in the rising rates of violent crime. Several commenters reminded me that Berenson has written a book on the subject:

Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

and another commenter updated with a link to a new substack by Berenson in which he confirms that the young killer was, indeed, a user:

Cannabis causes psychosis. Psychosis causes violence.

Berenson notes:

Meanwhile, cities like Portland, Oregon have suffered an explosion in violence following the legalization of cannabis. Portland had 16 murders in 2013, the year before voters in Oregon approved full legalization. Last year it had 90. It’s on pace to have even more in 2022. It has gone from being one of the safest medium-sized cities in the United States to one of the most dangerous. Denver has seen a similar trend.

Of course, Berenson gets the expected pushback from some commenters:

Alex, don’t confuse correlation with cause-and-effect.

For my part, I’m entirely open to Berenson’s argument and suspect that the crime wave we’re enduring may be caused by—among other factors, such as the war on policing, family breakdown, etc.—by the easy availability of more potent strains of cannabis.

In any event, there’s another article today that, along with mentioning Berenson’s argument, returns to the issue that I initially had in mind:

Could SSRI Antidepressants Be One of the Causes Behind These Mass Shootings?

I’m going to offer a significant excerpt because the article addresses important issues that don’t receive much acknowledgement—these tragic crimes tend to break down into debates about inanimate objects (guns) rather than people and the way our society allows people to be treated or to behave. No thanks to the MSM for that. So …

The author begins by acknowledging that, for many people, these medications—various anti-depressants—can be helpful:

The drugs are fairly effective—depending on who you ask—at treating depression, and many users report remarkable improvements in their mental health. I know quite a few people who take them and they describe the lifting of the dark cloud of depression and despair that had been dominating their lives.

But then he moves on to the troubling “side effects”, citing the FDA warning label, for starters. Again, he says, FDA warning labels seem intended to “scare the pants off you,” but … “Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients” is … “concerning.” Yes it is.

The question is, how concerned should we be? The warning labels on the most benign meds—even experimental injections mandated for large sectors of the public—can seem '“concerning,” but should we actually be concerned? Or should we just “move on” after clicking the terms of use, if you know what I mean?

The answer is that there are legitimate reasons for concern:

The National Institutes of Health way back in 2006 studied the SSRI-violence link in judicial outcomes, and came to this conclusion:

Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence.

That’s part of the problem with the Prog ideal of government by “experts”. So many experts turn out to be not so expert, or are paper pushers disconnected from their work, or lacking in common sense, etc.

A more recent Swedish report from 2020 made a similar conclusion:

This work shows that SSRI treatment appears to be associated with an increased risk for violent criminality in adults as well as adolescents, though the risk appears restricted to a small group of individuals… Previous work has found an association between SSRI use and violence in young individuals, but not in adults. Ours is a much bigger study which allows us to confirm that there is an association in adults as well.

So, not to worry? Only a small group of individuals? How many individuals does it take to perpetrate a mass killing—one? That’s the usual (although not invariable: Columbine) pattern, unless we’re talking about terrorist acts. Think of it in terms of side effects from any medication. Usually, serious side effects affect only a small group of individuals. In these cases, however, the side effects reach out to many more individuals than just those on the meds.

Perhaps the most serious effect could be the “emotional blunting” (or detachment) that has been linked to SSRI use. Some people who have taken the drugs report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything. Not feeling and not caring could explain how these mass shooters have the capacity to engage in horrific, evil conduct that most of us can’t even fathom.

That sure does sound like what we’re seeing.

Terrorists for instance are known to use drugs as “chemical courage” so they don’t feel pain, they don’t feel tired, and they don’t feel empathy. From The Sun:

Suicide bombers, like Manchester terrorist Salman Abedi, are said to be pumped full of drugs before they are sent on a mission, giving them red eyes and a distinctive look of confusion. The drug turns the terrorists into “unforgiving killing machines.”

While the drugs these terrorists use are not SSRIs, as far as I know, they still show what chemicals can do to the brain.

Substack author Alex Berenson argues for another cause: cannabis. He notes how the Uvalde shooter was a known toker, as was the Parkland shooter, the Texas church killer, and the Waukesha Christmas Parade murderer. I would further argue it is likely that some — if not all — of these killers were also on other medications too, including SSRIs, and that the ensuing toxic cocktail contributed to their psychosis. Remember, virtually all recent mass casualty killers had shown signs of problems, had spent time in the mental health system, and had most likely been prescribed anti-depressants or antipsychotic drugs, which are often used in combination with SSRIs.

An article from Thought Catalog claims that 37 notorious recent mass killers were either on medication at the time of their crimes or had recently gone off their meds. The list includes the Batman movie killer, one of the Columbine shooters, the Virginia Tech gunman, and Charleston church murderer Dylan Roof, among others. I have no way to know if this is accurate, because the author does not indicate his sourcing, but I also have no reason to believe it’s not true. If it is—why isn’t this a bigger story?! Why aren’t the media giants reporting it?

What can I say? Alert your family and friends. Write letters to politicians.